SO WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Strauss felt toxic situation outweighed all the good
Why would anyone not pick Kevin Pietersen? For pretty much the same reason that Noel Gallagher quit Oasis, the first time. Stay tuned. It’s like this.
In 2000, on a tour that was still big enough to include two sell-out gigs at Wembley Stadium, the band reached Barcelona. Noel and his brother Liam had a row which got quite personal.
At the end of it, Noel quit touring. his decision, he said, was simple. he could retire to his lovely villa in Ibiza or he could spend the rest of the summer travelling around Europe with this ****head.
And that is pretty much where Andrew Strauss was yesterday. There was no lovely Balearic retreat awaiting him, but he would rather fight Australia with one hand tied behind his back then welcome Pietersen back into the England dressing-room. Some may regard this as petty and vindictive but nobody should doubt the desire in any sportsman to win.
It is at least the equal to Noel Gallagher’s wish to crash out Wonderwall for 100,000 fans every night. So those feelings must be close to overwhelming. Noel couldn’t stand to be around Liam a minute longer, Strauss would appear to feel the same way about Pietersen.
The loathing is mutual. We know what Pietersen called Strauss in a text message and what Strauss called Pietersen off-air. It begins with C; or D in the Afrikaans version. Anyway, they amount to the same thing and 355 not out against Leicestershire isn’t going to solve that.
The timing of that innings could not be worse for Strauss and Pietersen knows it, too. Every boundary for Surrey over the past two days must have felt like a slap in the face for England’s new director of cricket. If Pietersen knew he was exiled, as has been suggested, his intention was to embarrass the new man at the ECB and he succeeded.
The argument is that differences should be put aside for the sake of the team but this runs deeper. Of course, team-mates don’t have to get along but hatred is never healthy in any closed environment.
By the time The Police’s drummer Stewart Copeland was scrawling his feelings about Sting on his four top toms — F***. Off. you. C***. — and hitting them extra hard, the band was not long for this world.
The problem with the debate around Pietersen is that it is possible to see both sides.
It doesn’t matter that Leicestershire have not won a game since 2012, or that he was put down five times in the innings — the first at 96 — Pietersen’s score for Surrey was spectacular and it is hard to imagine another English batsman who could make it. Equally, performances since he was banished have been unremittingly miserable. his detractors within have certainly made a poor case for doing without him.
Against that, there was little sign of an innings of that magnitude — or any magnitude — the last time Pietersen played for England and if the fate of this Test team is a summer Ashes whitewash then that is only the same dismal outcome that was achieved the last time Pietersen was selected. It really couldn’t get worse.
Then there is the issue of fitting him in. Undoubtedly, Gary Ballance and Joe Root are England’s future — yet it is the high middle order that would have to be shifted to accommodate Pietersen’s return. Ian Bell could open, but would that be the best use of his talent? And what do the players think? It would be hard for Strauss to continue down this path if England’s senior cricketers were clamouring for Pietersen’s recall. One imagines when he talks of a breakdown in trust, it is not merely a personal issue.
If this takes in the captain, Alastair Cook, and several others it is enough for the negatives to outweigh any positives. The only chance England have this summer is if a strong, unified mentality can be forged.
This would seem to be impossible if the figure the players were united against was sat in their own camp.
As usual with the ECB, there are infuriating inconsistencies. Why was Pietersen given even a glimmer of hope — told to pursue a county career and skip the IPL — if there was none? That doesn’t seem a very trustworthy approach.
And why did Strauss relent and talk of an advisory position in the one-day game? The beginning of trust rebuilt? What nonsense.
Who seeks advice from a person they cannot trust? Strauss would have been better to utter the word pragmatic sportsmen fear — never — and at least bring the subject to conclusion, if that is how he feels. This way, it drags on, sapping the energy from the room, a black cloud hanging over the English summer, a deluge in waiting.
Cricketers of significance from other countries mocked the announcement, and while we can take with a pinch of salt the desire of Shane Warne and Graeme Smith to see England do well, their ridiculing of Strauss’s logic is spot- on. The advisory role was an unnecessary addendum: one that undermined any sliver of sense around the issue.
Quite simply, the hierarchy of the English game regard Pietersen the way Noel did Liam and feel this toxic relationship outweighs any achievement with Surrey this summer.
At the moment, it is an argument that fails to convince but there is a very obvious solution beyond another round of briefings and announcements. They could try winning some cricket matches.
Verdict: Strauss. Definitely, maybe.
355 runs will not mend their relationship